Andrew Rothman
Member
From www.salon.com
Keeping dissent invisible
How the Secret Service and the White House keep protesters safely out of
Bush's sight -- and off TV.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Dave Lindorff
Oct. 16, 2003 | PHILADELPHIA -- When Bill Neel learned that President
George W. Bush was making a Labor Day campaign visit to Pittsburgh last year
to support local congressional candidates, the retired Pittsburgh
steelworker decided that he would be on hand to protest the president's
economic policies. Neel and his sister made a hand-lettered sign reading
"The Bushes must love the poor -- they've made so many of us," and headed
for a road where the motorcade would pass on the way from the airport to a
Carpenters' Union training center.
He never got to display his sign for President Bush to see, though. As he
stood among milling groups of Bush supporters, he was approached by a local
police detective, who told him and his sister that because they were
protesting, they had to move to a "free speech area," on orders of the U.S.
Secret Service.
"He pointed out a relatively remote baseball diamond that was enclosed in a
chain-link fence," Neel recalled in an interview with Salon. "I could see
these people behind the fence, with their faces up against it, and their
hands on the wire." (The ACLU posted photos of the demonstrators and
supporters at that event on its Web site.) "It looked more like a
concentration camp than a free speech area to me, so I said, 'I'm not going
in there. I thought the whole country was a free speech area.'" The
detective asked Neel, 66, to go to the area six or eight times, and when he
politely refused, he handcuffed and arrested the retired steelworker on a
charge of disorderly conduct. When Neel's sister argued against his arrest,
she was cuffed and hauled off as well. The two spent the president's visit
in a firehouse that was serving as Secret Service and police headquarters
for the event.
It appears that the Neels' experience is not unique. Late last month, on
Sept. 23, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit in a federal
court in Philadelphia against the Secret Service, alleging that the agency,
a unit of the new Homeland Security Department charged with protecting the
president, vice president and other key government officials, instituted a
policy in the months even before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks of
instructing local police to cordon off protesters from the president and
Vice President Dick Cheney. Plaintiffs include the National Organization for
Women, ACORN, USA Action and United for Justice, and groups and individuals
who have been penned up during presidential visits, or arrested for refusing
to go into a "free speech area," in places ranging from California to New
Mexico, Missouri, Connecticut, New Jersey, South Carolina and elsewhere in
Pennsylvania.
The ACLU, which began investigating Secret Service practices following
Neel's arrest, has identified 17 separate incidents where protesters were
segregated or removed during presidential or vice-presidential events, and
Pittsburgh ACLU legal director Witold Walczak says, "I wouldn't be surprised
if this is just the tip of the iceberg. We don't have the resources to
follow Bush and Cheney everywhere they go." The suit also comes at a time of
mounting charges by many civil libertarians on both the left and the right
that the Bush Administration and Attorney General John Ashcroft's Justice
Department are trampling on civil liberties.
"There is some history supporting the notion that all presidents dislike
people who don't like them," says Stefan Presser, head of the ACLU of
Philadelphia ACLU chapter and another lead attorney in the suit the Secret
Service. "But this approach of fencing protesters in and removing them from
view is unprecedented, and it's gotten worse over the past two years."
Well, maybe not exactly unprecedented. Pittsburgh's Walczak notes that
during Nixon administration, especially during his second term, police "made
quite a practice" of tearing up protest signs and confining protesters, and
at least in one case that went to court, the Secret Service admitted being
behind the actions. He says there were some isolated instances of
interference with protesters during the Reagan administration, and even at
President Clinton's inauguration, an attempt was made (unsuccessfully,
thanks to ACLU intervention) to bar anti-abortion protesters from the
inaugural march.
In its complaint, the ACLU cites nine cases since March 2001 in which
protesters were quarantined. And it alleges that the Secret Service, with
the assistance of state and local police, is systematically violating
protesters' First Amendment rights via two methods. "Under the first form,"
the suit says, " the protesters are moved further away from the location of
the official and/or the event, allowing people who express views that
support the government to remain closer. Under the second form, everyone
expressing a view -- either critical or supportive of the government -- is
moved further away, leaving people who merely observe, but publicly express
no view, to remain closer."
In either case, the complaint adds, "protesters are typically segregated
into what are commonly referred to as 'protest zones.'"
In the ACLU's view, the strategy, besides violating a fundamental right of
free speech and assembly, is damaging in two ways. "It insulates the
government officials from seeing or hearing the protesters and vice-versa,
and it gives to the media and the American public the appearance that there
exists less dissent than there really is."
Certainly, as television cameras follow a presidential motorcade lined with
cheering supporters, the image on the tube will be distorted if protesters
have all been spirited away around a corner somewhere fenced in for the
duration.
Contacted by Salon, the Secret Service denied that it discriminates against
protesters. "The Secret Service is message-neutral," said spokesman John
Gill. "We make no distinction on the basis of the purposes or intent of any
group or the content of signs."
Further, Gill insisted that the establishment and oversight of local viewing
areas during a presidential or vice presidential visit "is the
responsibility of state and local law enforcement." In practice, it's
apparently not that simple, though. Nor is the Secret Service's carefully
worded denial of responsibility as definitive as it might appear. The
"establishment of viewing areas" is indeed a local law enforcement
responsibility, but local law enforcement officials say that the Secret
Service has in some cases all but ordered them to pen in protesters. And it
appears that the Secret Service is making recommendations about how that
should be done.
Paul Wolf is an assistant supervisor in charge of operations at the
Allegheny County Police Department and was involved in planning for the
presidential visit to Pittsburgh last fall. He told Salon that the decision
to pen in Bush critics like Neel originated with the Secret Service.
"Generally, we don't put protesters inside enclosures," he said. "The only
time I remember us doing that was a Ku Klux Klan rally, where there was an
opposing rally, and we had to put up a fence to separate them.
"What the Secret Service does," he explained, "is they come in and do a site
survey, and say, 'Here's a place where the people can be, and we'd like to
have any protesters be put in a place that is able to be secured.' Someone,
say our police chief, may have suggested the place, but the request to fence
them in comes from the Secret Service. They run the show."
The statement by Wolf, who ranks just below the Allegheny County police
chief, is backed up by the sworn testimony of the detective who arrested
Neel. At a hearing in county court, Det. John Ianachione, testifying under
oath, said that the Secret Service had instructed local police to herd into
the enclosed so-called free-speech area "people that were there making a
statement pretty much against the president and his views." Explaining
further, he added: "If they were exhibiting themselves as a protester, they
were to go in that area."
Asked to respond to the accounts of Wolf and Ianachione about the Secret
Service's role in handling of protesters, spokesman Gill said only, "No
comment." Asked pointedly whether Wolf's account was incorrect, Gill again
said, "No comment."
Wolf also raises the possibility that White House operatives may be behind
the moves to isolate and remove protesters from presidential events. He says
that while he cannot recall specifically whether they were present with the
Secret Service advance team before last year's presidential Labor Day visit,
"I think they are sometimes part of" the planning process. The Secret
Service declined to comment on this assertion, saying it would not discuss
"security arrangements." The White House declined to comment on what role
the White House staff plays in deciding how protesters at presidential
events should be handled, referring all calls to the Secret Service.
Asked specifically whether White House officials have been behind requests
to have protesters segregated and removed from the vicinity of presidential
events, White House spokesman Allen Abney said, "No comment." But he added,
"The White House staff and the Secret Service work together on a lot of
things." While the Secret Service won't confirm that it is behind the
pattern of tight constraints placed on protesters at public appearances by
Bush and Cheney, the ACLU claims that mounting evidence suggests that this
is exactly what is going on.
But the ACLU's lawsuit claims that the Secret Service is responsible for the
tight constraints. A number of individual plaintiffs in the suit say that
when they were directed into remote "free-speech areas," or arrested for
refusing to go to such sites, they were informed that the local police were
acting "on orders from the Secret Service."
That's the story Bill Ramsey got when he was arrested last Nov. 4 by police
in St. Charles, Mo., while attempting to unfurl an antiwar banner amid a
group of pro-Bush people during a presidential visit to a local airport.
"The police told us if we wanted to show the banner, we'd have to go to a
parking lot four-tenths of a mile away and out of sight of the president's
motorcade," says Ramsey. When we attempted to put it up anyway, they
arrested us, and said they'd been ordered to by the Secret Service."
But Ramsey says that when his organization, the Instead of War Coalition,
has sought to obtain permission to hold its demonstrations during
presidential visits, they are told by the Secret Service that such matters
are the responsibility of local police. "When we go to the local police,
though, they say it's up to the Secret Service."
Efforts to obtain a comment from the St. Charles Police Department were
unsuccessful.
Andrew Wimmer, another member of the Instead of War Coalition, says he was
offered a similar explanation last January in St. Louis when he attempted to
unfurl a sign reading "Instead of War, Invest in People" on a street full of
Bush supporters. According to Wimmer, St. Louis police officers told him
he'd have to leave a street full of Bush supporters and go to a protest area
two blocks from the presidential motorcade route because of his protest
sign. He recalls that as crowds of people walked down a thoroughfare toward
the trading company that President Bush was slated to visit, "local police
were pulling out people carrying protest signs and directing them to the
protest area." The 48-year-old IT worker says, "When they got to me, I said
no, I'd just as soon stand with the people here. But they said the Secret
Service wanted protesters in the protest area."
In the end, Wimmer, like Ramsey and others who have refused to be caged
during protests, was arrested. "They charged me with obstructing passage
with my sign, which was a 2.5-foot-by-2-foot lawn sign," he says, noting
that a woman standing nearby with a similar-size sign saying "We love you
Mr. President," was left alone.
"The Secret Service keeps saying that the decision to separate protesters
and remove them from view is a local police matter," says Denise Lieberman,
legal director of the ACLU of Eastern Missouri, who is representing both
Ramsey and Wimmer in their arrest cases. "But these kinds of things only
happen when the Secret Service is involved. We've had many visits to St.
Louis -- by the pope, by candidates, by dignitaries -- and it's only when
the president or the vice president come to town that this kind of thing
happens."
"We expect to see a lot more of this heading into a campaign season," says
Chris Hansen, senior staff attorney at the ACLU and one of the lead
attorneys handling the suit against the Secret Service.
Presser, the Philadelphia ACLU attorney, traces the tactic to the last
Republican National Convention, which nominated Bush for the presidency in
August 2000. "The GOP tried to reserve every possible space where a protest
group might rally," Presser recalls. "Part of the party's contract with the
city of Philadelphia for the convention was that they were given an omnibus
permit to use 'all available space' for the two weeks of the convention.
They basically privatized the city to block all legal protest."
During that convention, the city attempted to require all groups seeking to
protest during the convention to apply for permits to get a 15-minute
protest time slot, during which they would be allowed to assemble and make
their statement in a sunken "protest pit," remote from the Convention
Center. Many groups refused, and the result was a series of conflicts with
local police and many arrests, most of which were later tossed out by the
courts.
Since then, Presser charges, the Bush administration has continued the
strategy of using the Secret Service and cooperative local police
departments to keep protesters at bay, and not incidentally, out of easy
range of the media. "People used to say that Ronald Reagan's was the most
scripted administration we ever had," the attorney says, "but this Bush
administration has gone way beyond that." Presser adds that he was told by
William Fisher, a senior Philadelphia police captain and head of the
department's Civil Affairs Unit, that the tight restrictions and decision to
cordon off protesters during presidential visits have come "at the Secret
Service's direction." Fisher declined to be interviewed for this article,
but when asked, did not deny Presser's account of their conversation.
Presser and the ACLU don't question the Secret Service's responsibility to
protect the president and other key government officials. Even plaintiffs in
the case agree that the president must be protected. But "putting protesters
behind a fence isn't going to help," says Neel, the former Pittsburgh
steelworker. "I mean, somebody who was going to attempt an assassination
wouldn't be carrying a protest sign. He'd be carrying a sign saying 'I love
George!'"
The ACLU's Presser agrees. "Just as the terrorists who attacked the World
Trade Center were careful to blend in and stayed away from mosques," he
says, "anyone who had ill will towards the president could just put on a
pro-Bush T-shirt and, under this policy, he'd be allowed to move closer to
the president by the Secret Service."
He adds, "It seems that these 'security zones' for protesters have very
little to do with the president's physical security, and a whole lot to do
with his political security." Asked how many times in history an attack had
been made on a president or other official under Secret Service protection
by someone clearly identifiable as a protester, agency spokesman Gill said,
"I'm not going to comment on that." Interestingly, Gill at no point claimed
that protesters posed a special threat to the president or vice president.
Whatever the real motives behind it, the Secret Service policy of fencing
off protests and protesters during presidential events may be in for a tough
challenge. The judge assigned to the case, John Fullam, is an appointee of
former President Lyndon B. Johnson, and back in the late 1980s issued a
permanent injunction in Philadelphia -- still in effect -- that bars both
the city of Philadelphia and the National Parks Department (the agency in
charge of the city's many federal monuments), from treating protesters or
people wearing protest paraphernalia any differently from other citizens.
The ACLU, which is seeking an injunction barring the Secret Service and
local police from treating protesters differently from other spectators at
administration events, is hopeful that the court will act "before the
presidential campaign gets into full swing next summer," says Walczak.
Meanwhile, Presser says he is optimistic that the lawsuit, simply by being
filed, could make things easier for protesters during the coming campaign
season."I suspect that this suit may give the Secret Service and local
police some pause in how they treat protests," he says.
salon.com
Keeping dissent invisible
How the Secret Service and the White House keep protesters safely out of
Bush's sight -- and off TV.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Dave Lindorff
Oct. 16, 2003 | PHILADELPHIA -- When Bill Neel learned that President
George W. Bush was making a Labor Day campaign visit to Pittsburgh last year
to support local congressional candidates, the retired Pittsburgh
steelworker decided that he would be on hand to protest the president's
economic policies. Neel and his sister made a hand-lettered sign reading
"The Bushes must love the poor -- they've made so many of us," and headed
for a road where the motorcade would pass on the way from the airport to a
Carpenters' Union training center.
He never got to display his sign for President Bush to see, though. As he
stood among milling groups of Bush supporters, he was approached by a local
police detective, who told him and his sister that because they were
protesting, they had to move to a "free speech area," on orders of the U.S.
Secret Service.
"He pointed out a relatively remote baseball diamond that was enclosed in a
chain-link fence," Neel recalled in an interview with Salon. "I could see
these people behind the fence, with their faces up against it, and their
hands on the wire." (The ACLU posted photos of the demonstrators and
supporters at that event on its Web site.) "It looked more like a
concentration camp than a free speech area to me, so I said, 'I'm not going
in there. I thought the whole country was a free speech area.'" The
detective asked Neel, 66, to go to the area six or eight times, and when he
politely refused, he handcuffed and arrested the retired steelworker on a
charge of disorderly conduct. When Neel's sister argued against his arrest,
she was cuffed and hauled off as well. The two spent the president's visit
in a firehouse that was serving as Secret Service and police headquarters
for the event.
It appears that the Neels' experience is not unique. Late last month, on
Sept. 23, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit in a federal
court in Philadelphia against the Secret Service, alleging that the agency,
a unit of the new Homeland Security Department charged with protecting the
president, vice president and other key government officials, instituted a
policy in the months even before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks of
instructing local police to cordon off protesters from the president and
Vice President Dick Cheney. Plaintiffs include the National Organization for
Women, ACORN, USA Action and United for Justice, and groups and individuals
who have been penned up during presidential visits, or arrested for refusing
to go into a "free speech area," in places ranging from California to New
Mexico, Missouri, Connecticut, New Jersey, South Carolina and elsewhere in
Pennsylvania.
The ACLU, which began investigating Secret Service practices following
Neel's arrest, has identified 17 separate incidents where protesters were
segregated or removed during presidential or vice-presidential events, and
Pittsburgh ACLU legal director Witold Walczak says, "I wouldn't be surprised
if this is just the tip of the iceberg. We don't have the resources to
follow Bush and Cheney everywhere they go." The suit also comes at a time of
mounting charges by many civil libertarians on both the left and the right
that the Bush Administration and Attorney General John Ashcroft's Justice
Department are trampling on civil liberties.
"There is some history supporting the notion that all presidents dislike
people who don't like them," says Stefan Presser, head of the ACLU of
Philadelphia ACLU chapter and another lead attorney in the suit the Secret
Service. "But this approach of fencing protesters in and removing them from
view is unprecedented, and it's gotten worse over the past two years."
Well, maybe not exactly unprecedented. Pittsburgh's Walczak notes that
during Nixon administration, especially during his second term, police "made
quite a practice" of tearing up protest signs and confining protesters, and
at least in one case that went to court, the Secret Service admitted being
behind the actions. He says there were some isolated instances of
interference with protesters during the Reagan administration, and even at
President Clinton's inauguration, an attempt was made (unsuccessfully,
thanks to ACLU intervention) to bar anti-abortion protesters from the
inaugural march.
In its complaint, the ACLU cites nine cases since March 2001 in which
protesters were quarantined. And it alleges that the Secret Service, with
the assistance of state and local police, is systematically violating
protesters' First Amendment rights via two methods. "Under the first form,"
the suit says, " the protesters are moved further away from the location of
the official and/or the event, allowing people who express views that
support the government to remain closer. Under the second form, everyone
expressing a view -- either critical or supportive of the government -- is
moved further away, leaving people who merely observe, but publicly express
no view, to remain closer."
In either case, the complaint adds, "protesters are typically segregated
into what are commonly referred to as 'protest zones.'"
In the ACLU's view, the strategy, besides violating a fundamental right of
free speech and assembly, is damaging in two ways. "It insulates the
government officials from seeing or hearing the protesters and vice-versa,
and it gives to the media and the American public the appearance that there
exists less dissent than there really is."
Certainly, as television cameras follow a presidential motorcade lined with
cheering supporters, the image on the tube will be distorted if protesters
have all been spirited away around a corner somewhere fenced in for the
duration.
Contacted by Salon, the Secret Service denied that it discriminates against
protesters. "The Secret Service is message-neutral," said spokesman John
Gill. "We make no distinction on the basis of the purposes or intent of any
group or the content of signs."
Further, Gill insisted that the establishment and oversight of local viewing
areas during a presidential or vice presidential visit "is the
responsibility of state and local law enforcement." In practice, it's
apparently not that simple, though. Nor is the Secret Service's carefully
worded denial of responsibility as definitive as it might appear. The
"establishment of viewing areas" is indeed a local law enforcement
responsibility, but local law enforcement officials say that the Secret
Service has in some cases all but ordered them to pen in protesters. And it
appears that the Secret Service is making recommendations about how that
should be done.
Paul Wolf is an assistant supervisor in charge of operations at the
Allegheny County Police Department and was involved in planning for the
presidential visit to Pittsburgh last fall. He told Salon that the decision
to pen in Bush critics like Neel originated with the Secret Service.
"Generally, we don't put protesters inside enclosures," he said. "The only
time I remember us doing that was a Ku Klux Klan rally, where there was an
opposing rally, and we had to put up a fence to separate them.
"What the Secret Service does," he explained, "is they come in and do a site
survey, and say, 'Here's a place where the people can be, and we'd like to
have any protesters be put in a place that is able to be secured.' Someone,
say our police chief, may have suggested the place, but the request to fence
them in comes from the Secret Service. They run the show."
The statement by Wolf, who ranks just below the Allegheny County police
chief, is backed up by the sworn testimony of the detective who arrested
Neel. At a hearing in county court, Det. John Ianachione, testifying under
oath, said that the Secret Service had instructed local police to herd into
the enclosed so-called free-speech area "people that were there making a
statement pretty much against the president and his views." Explaining
further, he added: "If they were exhibiting themselves as a protester, they
were to go in that area."
Asked to respond to the accounts of Wolf and Ianachione about the Secret
Service's role in handling of protesters, spokesman Gill said only, "No
comment." Asked pointedly whether Wolf's account was incorrect, Gill again
said, "No comment."
Wolf also raises the possibility that White House operatives may be behind
the moves to isolate and remove protesters from presidential events. He says
that while he cannot recall specifically whether they were present with the
Secret Service advance team before last year's presidential Labor Day visit,
"I think they are sometimes part of" the planning process. The Secret
Service declined to comment on this assertion, saying it would not discuss
"security arrangements." The White House declined to comment on what role
the White House staff plays in deciding how protesters at presidential
events should be handled, referring all calls to the Secret Service.
Asked specifically whether White House officials have been behind requests
to have protesters segregated and removed from the vicinity of presidential
events, White House spokesman Allen Abney said, "No comment." But he added,
"The White House staff and the Secret Service work together on a lot of
things." While the Secret Service won't confirm that it is behind the
pattern of tight constraints placed on protesters at public appearances by
Bush and Cheney, the ACLU claims that mounting evidence suggests that this
is exactly what is going on.
But the ACLU's lawsuit claims that the Secret Service is responsible for the
tight constraints. A number of individual plaintiffs in the suit say that
when they were directed into remote "free-speech areas," or arrested for
refusing to go to such sites, they were informed that the local police were
acting "on orders from the Secret Service."
That's the story Bill Ramsey got when he was arrested last Nov. 4 by police
in St. Charles, Mo., while attempting to unfurl an antiwar banner amid a
group of pro-Bush people during a presidential visit to a local airport.
"The police told us if we wanted to show the banner, we'd have to go to a
parking lot four-tenths of a mile away and out of sight of the president's
motorcade," says Ramsey. When we attempted to put it up anyway, they
arrested us, and said they'd been ordered to by the Secret Service."
But Ramsey says that when his organization, the Instead of War Coalition,
has sought to obtain permission to hold its demonstrations during
presidential visits, they are told by the Secret Service that such matters
are the responsibility of local police. "When we go to the local police,
though, they say it's up to the Secret Service."
Efforts to obtain a comment from the St. Charles Police Department were
unsuccessful.
Andrew Wimmer, another member of the Instead of War Coalition, says he was
offered a similar explanation last January in St. Louis when he attempted to
unfurl a sign reading "Instead of War, Invest in People" on a street full of
Bush supporters. According to Wimmer, St. Louis police officers told him
he'd have to leave a street full of Bush supporters and go to a protest area
two blocks from the presidential motorcade route because of his protest
sign. He recalls that as crowds of people walked down a thoroughfare toward
the trading company that President Bush was slated to visit, "local police
were pulling out people carrying protest signs and directing them to the
protest area." The 48-year-old IT worker says, "When they got to me, I said
no, I'd just as soon stand with the people here. But they said the Secret
Service wanted protesters in the protest area."
In the end, Wimmer, like Ramsey and others who have refused to be caged
during protests, was arrested. "They charged me with obstructing passage
with my sign, which was a 2.5-foot-by-2-foot lawn sign," he says, noting
that a woman standing nearby with a similar-size sign saying "We love you
Mr. President," was left alone.
"The Secret Service keeps saying that the decision to separate protesters
and remove them from view is a local police matter," says Denise Lieberman,
legal director of the ACLU of Eastern Missouri, who is representing both
Ramsey and Wimmer in their arrest cases. "But these kinds of things only
happen when the Secret Service is involved. We've had many visits to St.
Louis -- by the pope, by candidates, by dignitaries -- and it's only when
the president or the vice president come to town that this kind of thing
happens."
"We expect to see a lot more of this heading into a campaign season," says
Chris Hansen, senior staff attorney at the ACLU and one of the lead
attorneys handling the suit against the Secret Service.
Presser, the Philadelphia ACLU attorney, traces the tactic to the last
Republican National Convention, which nominated Bush for the presidency in
August 2000. "The GOP tried to reserve every possible space where a protest
group might rally," Presser recalls. "Part of the party's contract with the
city of Philadelphia for the convention was that they were given an omnibus
permit to use 'all available space' for the two weeks of the convention.
They basically privatized the city to block all legal protest."
During that convention, the city attempted to require all groups seeking to
protest during the convention to apply for permits to get a 15-minute
protest time slot, during which they would be allowed to assemble and make
their statement in a sunken "protest pit," remote from the Convention
Center. Many groups refused, and the result was a series of conflicts with
local police and many arrests, most of which were later tossed out by the
courts.
Since then, Presser charges, the Bush administration has continued the
strategy of using the Secret Service and cooperative local police
departments to keep protesters at bay, and not incidentally, out of easy
range of the media. "People used to say that Ronald Reagan's was the most
scripted administration we ever had," the attorney says, "but this Bush
administration has gone way beyond that." Presser adds that he was told by
William Fisher, a senior Philadelphia police captain and head of the
department's Civil Affairs Unit, that the tight restrictions and decision to
cordon off protesters during presidential visits have come "at the Secret
Service's direction." Fisher declined to be interviewed for this article,
but when asked, did not deny Presser's account of their conversation.
Presser and the ACLU don't question the Secret Service's responsibility to
protect the president and other key government officials. Even plaintiffs in
the case agree that the president must be protected. But "putting protesters
behind a fence isn't going to help," says Neel, the former Pittsburgh
steelworker. "I mean, somebody who was going to attempt an assassination
wouldn't be carrying a protest sign. He'd be carrying a sign saying 'I love
George!'"
The ACLU's Presser agrees. "Just as the terrorists who attacked the World
Trade Center were careful to blend in and stayed away from mosques," he
says, "anyone who had ill will towards the president could just put on a
pro-Bush T-shirt and, under this policy, he'd be allowed to move closer to
the president by the Secret Service."
He adds, "It seems that these 'security zones' for protesters have very
little to do with the president's physical security, and a whole lot to do
with his political security." Asked how many times in history an attack had
been made on a president or other official under Secret Service protection
by someone clearly identifiable as a protester, agency spokesman Gill said,
"I'm not going to comment on that." Interestingly, Gill at no point claimed
that protesters posed a special threat to the president or vice president.
Whatever the real motives behind it, the Secret Service policy of fencing
off protests and protesters during presidential events may be in for a tough
challenge. The judge assigned to the case, John Fullam, is an appointee of
former President Lyndon B. Johnson, and back in the late 1980s issued a
permanent injunction in Philadelphia -- still in effect -- that bars both
the city of Philadelphia and the National Parks Department (the agency in
charge of the city's many federal monuments), from treating protesters or
people wearing protest paraphernalia any differently from other citizens.
The ACLU, which is seeking an injunction barring the Secret Service and
local police from treating protesters differently from other spectators at
administration events, is hopeful that the court will act "before the
presidential campaign gets into full swing next summer," says Walczak.
Meanwhile, Presser says he is optimistic that the lawsuit, simply by being
filed, could make things easier for protesters during the coming campaign
season."I suspect that this suit may give the Secret Service and local
police some pause in how they treat protests," he says.
salon.com
